Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="curtislclay, post: 4703688, member: 89514"]As to the beginning of the Caesarean year, it seems that all we can say for sure is that the Caesareans did not wait a full year after an emperor's accession before beginning his Year 2, but rather started that Year 2 at an unknown earlier date which was the New Year according to their own calendar. Had the Caesareans, for example, adopted Elagabalus' dies imperii in June 218 as their New Year, then Elagabalus would still only have been in his fourth Caesarean year when he was assassinated in March 222, since his fifth year would not have begun until June 222. Yet there are Caesarean coins of Elagabalus dated ET E=Year 5, Syd./Malloy 527d-g, one clearly illustrated by SNG Aulock 6506. So Elagabalus was definitely already in his fifth Caesarean year when he died in March 222, his fifth year apparently having begun sometime between June 221 and early March 222. But it would seem that there is no clear evidence for when the Caesareans celebrated their New Year and advanced the number of the emperor's regnal year on their coins. Eckhel says it was on 12 December, following the "conclusions of the chronographers" as adopted by the very learned and competent Belley in his article on the coinage of Caesarea. Recently however Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice have suggested 2 September, the New Year of the Actian Antiochene calendar, or 1 October, "as at Antioch" (RPC II, 1999, p. 239).[/QUOTE]